The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Exorcet]

Michael Sam is a perfect example of homosexuality going overboard, he literally smeared cake on his lovers face and well you know the rest. Homosexuals are forcing their agenda upon people; school assemblies advocating homosexuality are the perfect example for promoting this agenda, why were we forced to attend these as teenagers. People get vilified for challenging it. Liberals are very narrow minded people always proclaiming their openness yet bash others on their stance. Homosexuality just like heterosexuality is a bedroom situation, which the government shouldn't be involved in promoting. I don't how anyone can argue with this. Rand Paul 2016 wooo woooo

No one is forcing an agenda. They're just fighting hard against outdated ignorance and bigotry. It should be applauded. A man and woman kiss and no one cares, but if two men kiss there is an outcry, as if it's different in any meaningful way from the first situation. Flipping through TV channels I can see a lot more of the "heterosexual agenda" than anything else.

Even when people don't actively oppose homosexuality but yet say they don't want to see it or something, you could be forgiven for considering that a bit strange if you think on it too long. I'd bet it has more to do with the social stigma against gays rather than the person's true feelings, at least in some cases. It's like when you tell a child that a member of the opposite sex has cooties, but people don't grow out of all the myths about gays.

 

[Joel]

And there is no reason not to give civil unions the same legal protections without calling it marriage.

I don't care if black people go to school, as long as they don't go to our schools. I know it's a stretch and you disagree with comparing gays to what black people faced, but the analogy fits. It's a red herring to try and disguise a discomfort for something with an attempt to protect heritage. Universities unwilling to accept black students were defending what they believed was right just as you feel you are defending the word/sanctity of marriage by wanting to keep the definition between a man and a woman. The point is that it isn't truly inclusive to tell people they can have equal rights as long as they use a different name. After all, blacks had a lot of the same rights for a long time, as long as they used the blacks only entrances and water fountains.

As far as the Michael Sam stuff goes it's just another case of much ado about nothing. It is another case where I can giggle at people being upset about gay acceptance being "shoved down their throats" though.

 

[DK]

Michael Sam is a perfect example of homosexuality going overboard, he literally smeared cake on his lovers face and well you know the rest. Homosexuals are forcing their agenda upon people; school assemblies advocating homosexuality are the perfect example for promoting this agenda, why were we forced to attend these as teenagers. People get vilified for challenging it. Liberals are very narrow minded people always proclaiming their openness yet bash others on their stance. Homosexuality just like heterosexuality is a bedroom situation, which the government shouldn't be involved in promoting. I don't how anyone can argue with this. Rand Paul 2016 wooo woooo

I find it ironic that the person who posted this has a large-breasted woman in his avatar.

I wonder how much a ticket from your nearest airport to Putin's Glorious Christian and Macho Russia costs.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Michael Sam is a perfect example of homosexuality going overboard, he literally smeared cake on his lovers face and well you know the rest.

Your attitude seems, to me, to be a perfect example of you going overboard worrying about other people's sex lives

If you've never smeared cake on (or off) a lover then you haven't lived.

Homosexuals are forcing their agenda upon people...the government shouldn't be involved in promoting (it). I don't how anyone can argue with this.

Of course they shouldn't argue, how else would you force your heterosexual agenda on people?

Liberals are very narrow minded people

Citation required, start with a dictionary.

Homosexuality just like heterosexuality is a bedroom situation, which the government shouldn't be involved in promoting. I don't how anyone can argue with this. Rand Paul 2016 wooo woooo

Really? So the government should supress it? After all, if the police allow public displays of affection they're promoting it, right?

If you believe that to be true you should take that avatar down from the wall of your glass house

And then move to Iran. You'll love it, but watch the liberals.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Michael Sam is a perfect example of homosexuality going overboard, he literally smeared cake on his lovers face and well you know the rest.

Why is Michael Sam's example so widely criticised? People express love on TV all the time. He was happy that he was going to become a top tier American football player and so he should be. He shouldn't be forced to hide who he is on TV, or anywhere.

Homosexuals are forcing their agenda upon people; school assemblies advocating homosexuality are the perfect example for promoting this agenda, why were we forced to attend these as teenagers.

This gay agenda that so many people claim is being forced down our throats: would that just be this instead of this? Because the only "agenda" I see is the idea that everyone should be treated equally, and that a belief not universally held by gay people, but universally held by tolerant, reasonable, unprejudiced people.

You're obviously one of those people who thinks that everyone is out to get you, so I'll let you into a little secret: those assemblies weren't advocating homosexuality, they were advocating tolerance. The difference is that whatever your sexuality is, it's perfectly normal and shouldn't be a big deal, but if you think that homosexuals should be treated in an inferior manner or you're bullying a gay person, it's a very big deal. 50 years ago the same sort of thing happened with race. It doesn't matter what your skin colour is, but it does matter if you think someone's skin colour makes them better or worse than someone else who has a different skin colour.

People get vilified for challenging it. Liberals are very narrow minded people always proclaiming their openness yet bash others on their stance.

People get vilified for being prejudiced and homophobic. It's perfectly acceptable to discuss the way society views homosexuality, and what the government should do/not do. It's perfectly acceptable to discuss whether or not certain views are seen as the only right ones and that all other views are automatically put down. It's not okay to say that homosexuals are inferior or that they should have to ever hide who they are or who they love. It's not okay to claim that there is a "homosexual agenda", because it's utter bollocks that the homophobic use to monger fear.

Homosexuality just like heterosexuality is a bedroom situation, which the government shouldn't be involved in promoting. I don't how anyone can argue with this. Rand Paul 2016 wooo woooo

The government is promoting that everyone accept homosexuals, not that everyone be homosexuals. There's a very clear difference and you'd have to be either thick or very homophobic to not be able to notice the difference. The very real truth is that homosexuals are in many cases discriminated against, and that's wrong, just like discriminating against someone because of their religion is wrong. "Free" governments protect the right to hold whatever religious beliefs one wants, and make it illegal to discriminate against someone because of it. They should do the same with sexuality.

 

[FoolKiller]

Michael Sam is a perfect example of homosexuality going overboard, he literally smeared cake on his lovers face and well you know the rest.

Did it look like this, only gay?

Homosexuals are forcing their agenda upon people;

What is their agenda? Straight holocaust? I'm confused.

school assemblies advocating homosexuality are the perfect example for promoting this agenda,

Whoa! Advocating homosexuality? Sure you don't mean advocating acceptance? Unless the agenda they are promoting is for everyone to become gay, I believe you misused that word.

why were we forced to attend these as teenagers.

This, I agree with. Unless you have shown to be creating a problem I don't think you should be forced into these. I ask the same thing every year they make us all take sexual harassment courses at work.

Liberals are very narrow minded people always proclaiming their openness yet bash others on their stance.

I'm sorry I questioned your opinion in a thread dedicated to discussing opinions. I just don't see how homosexuality affects you, unless a homosexual act was forced upon you.

Homosexuality just like heterosexuality is a bedroom situation,

Trust me, from experience, I can tell you that practicing your heterosexuality solely in your bedroom gets you no girls. And gets very sad, very fast.

which the government shouldn't be involved in promoting.

Agreed, but when it does create benefits around one and denies it to the other, that is wrong and needs to be remedied, one way or another.

 

[Crash]

So why not give civil unions those same legal protections without calling it marriage? I think a lot of people really do just want equality and fairness; and that's fine.

If civil unions apply to a heterosexual relationship between a man and a woman as well, then I'm not opposed to that. We'll just call everything civil unions, like Bob civil unioned Jane.

But if the state uses the word "marriage" for a specific type of relationship between a man and a woman, then it must be equal and use the same word for the same specific type of relationship between a same-sex couple, and must extend the same benefits and recognition bestowed to a heterosexual married couple as well.

 

[Imari]

If civil unions apply to a heterosexual relationship between a man and a woman as well, then I'm not opposed to that. We'll just call everything civil unions, like Bob civil unioned Jane.

I find myself oddly in approval of the idea of banning marriage outright. In a stroke we have solved the marriage equality problem AND the high divorce rate!

 

[TenEightyOne]

I find myself oddly in approval of the idea of banning marriage outright. In a stroke we have solved the marriage equality problem AND the high divorce rate!

Me too. Practically you'd still need a way to divide goods/children/CD collections after the whore goes off with the bloke you always thought was your mate, but maybe I'm more sensitive to that kind of thing than others.

 

[Imari]

Me too. Practically you'd still need a way to divide goods/children/CD collections after the whore goes off with the bloke you always thought was your mate, but maybe I'm more sensitive to that kind of thing than others.

You're right, that is a problem. Rollerball?

 

[FoolKiller]

Me too. Practically you'd still need a way to divide goods/children/CD collections after the whore goes off with the bloke you always thought was your mate, but maybe I'm more sensitive to that kind of thing than others.

You're right, that is a problem. Rollerball?

And you guys wonder why Americans like their guns so much.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I find myself oddly in approval of the idea of banning marriage outright. In a stroke we have solved the marriage equality problem AND the high divorce rate!

I've been in the "no one gets married without a marriage contract first" camp for 20 years. Everyone getting married should be forced to spell out the financial terms of their marriage and potential divorce before they get married. Imagine the heartache and lawyers fees it would save down the road!! I imagine a lot less people would get married to begin with if they had to have a serious talk about money before they tie the knot.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I've been in the "no one gets married without a marriage contract first" camp for 20 years. Everyone getting married should be forced to spell out the financial terms of their marriage and potential divorce before they get married. Imagine the heartache and lawyers fees it would save down the road!! I imagine a lot less people would get married to begin with if they had to have a serious talk about money before they tie the knot.

Did you have to use the word camp? I mean really?

That's the thing... let's say we Get Rid of Marriage. That's it, no more marriages, people choose who to be with and get on with it. Then they write a contract spelling out the terms of their relationship, ensuring they're entitled to the legal protection of that contract in terms of wellbeing, family and possessions. From that contracted union they'll naturally gain some financial benefits in certain services.

We just need a word for it now. Fortunately "Marriage" is free

None of that solves the problem that people like @Agent_47 seem to have with two men being in love with each other. It just demonstrates that people are hopelessly imperfect.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Did you have to use the word camp? I mean really?

That's the thing... let's say we Get Rid of Marriage. That's it, no more marriages, people choose who to be with and get on with it. Then they write a contract spelling out the terms of their relationship, ensuring they're entitled to the legal protection of that contract in terms of wellbeing, family and possessions. From that contracted union they'll naturally gain some financial benefits in certain services.

We just need a word for it now. Fortunately "Marriage" is free

None of that solves the problem that people like @Agent_47 seem to have with two men being in love with each other. It just demonstrates that people are hopelessly imperfect.

I didn't go back to read @Agent_47 comments but you'll always have some people resistant to change even when it has no effect on them.

Call it marriage or something else, it's kind of silly to enter into the biggest financial arrangement of your life, where literally 50% of your wealth is on the line in most western countries, and not at least have a conversation and make a few notes you can agree on. Gay marriage is a fly on an elephant's butt compared to the divorce problem and the carnage it causes.

 

[FoolKiller]

divorce problem and the carnage it causes.

Kill all lawyers. Problem solved.

If you ever get a chance to see the documentary Divorce Corp, I recommend you do. You'll see where the carnage comes from. Did you know that there are some judges that refuse to sign off on an amicable, out-of-court divorce filing, and will only sign off on it after it has gone to trial?

In light of how marriage and divorce works in this country, if I were gay I'd want equality, but be very iffy on the whole legally getting married thing. You know divorce lawyers are just waiting for the new influx of business as gay marriage becomes legal in more places. They're already picking the bones off the marriages that came more from the elation of a political win than the compatibility to last a lifetime.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I didn't go back to read @Agent_47 comments

It's an interesting read

@FoolKiller, I once read that the reason sharks don't attack lawyers is "professional courtesy". That could well be true.

 

[JulesJackson]

I find myself oddly in approval of the idea of banning marriage outright. In a stroke we have solved the marriage equality problem AND the high divorce rate!

It's the same group of people bashing religion yet want to use one of the focal points of religion; marriage. Liberals always contradict themselves.

 

[Azuremen]

It's the same group of people bashing religion yet want to use one of the focal points of religion; marriage. Liberals always contradict themselves.

Marriage predates Christianity, which is the religion I assume you're operating under.

The fact you use the word liberals in such a way suggests this is all pointless anyhow.

 

[Imari]

It's the same group of people bashing religion yet want to use one of the focal points of religion; marriage. Liberals always contradict themselves.

What?

Firstly, where's the bashing of religion?
Secondly, how is marriage a focal point of religion?
Thirdly, where is the wanting to use marriage for anything?

Lastly, I think you missed the tongue-in-cheek nature of that post. It was made explicit by the smiley, and confirmed in the next post where I suggested death matches on rollerblades as a method of settling marital disputes.


And I'll thank you not to label me as a liberal. While I may agree with many liberalist ideas, my worldview is my own arrived at by my own reasoning. I haven't compared extensively (because I think politics in general is a bit of a crock), but I would be very surprised if my opinions do not differ strongly from those of a stereotypical liberal on many matters.

I do not subscribe to the notion of joining a group and allowing the opinions of that group to dictate my responses to the world. You can ask me my opinion on anything, and I will give you MY opinion, not someone else's.

And while I have met religious people who have independently come to the same opinions as those held by their religion (which I respect them greatly for), there are many who simply follow the rules because them's the rules. I have little respect for anyone who espouses an opinion just because their party leader/religious leader/religious text says so, without the reasoning to back it up.

I should be clear that this is not bashing religion, religion itself does many positive things. This is bashing people who follow religion, or ANY creed, without adequately understanding why the beliefs that are central to that creed are the way they are.

 

[JulesJackson]

What?

Firstly, where's the bashing of religion?
Secondly, how is marriage a focal point of religion?
Thirdly, where is the wanting to use marriage for anything?

Lastly, I think you missed the tongue-in-cheek nature of that post. It was made explicit by the smiley, and confirmed in the next post where I suggested death matches on rollerblades as a method of settling marital disputes.


And I'll thank you not to label me as a liberal. While I may agree with many liberalist ideas, my worldview is my own arrived at by my own reasoning. I haven't compared extensively (because I think politics in general is a bit of a crock), but I would be very surprised if my opinions do not differ strongly from those of a stereotypical liberal on many matters.

I do not subscribe to the notion of joining a group and allowing the opinions of that group to dictate my responses to the world. You can ask me my opinion on anything, and I will give you MY opinion, not someone else's.

And while I have met religious people who have independently come to the same opinions as those held by their religion (which I respect them greatly for), there are many who simply follow the rules because them's the rules. I have little respect for anyone who espouses an opinion just because their party leader/religious leader/religious text says so, without the reasoning to back it up.

I should be clear that this is not bashing religion, religion itself does many positive things. This is bashing people who follow religion, or ANY creed, without adequately understanding why the beliefs that are central to that creed are the way they are.

So let me ask you this, is homosexuality a choice or is someone-born like that ?
In a way it's like transgender folks stating they were born the opposite sex, now we can't be going against science now can we?

 

[Imari]

So let me ask you this, is homosexuality a choice or is someone-born like that ?

I don't know.

But either way doesn't really seem to matter to me. Either they're unable to change their sexuality at will, in which case forcing them to be straight is basically futile, or they are able to but why should they be forced to rescind a choice freely made? It doesn't strike me as something that harms others, so if people wish to choose to be homosexual for whatever reason, more power to them.

I enjoy driving sports cars. I don't know whether I was born liking sports cars, or whether it's a choice I made at some point, but I don't see much reason anyone should tell me not to. Frankly, I don't see much difference if a man enjoys riding men, whether it's innate or a choice.

Do you think that it matters whether homosexuality is innate or a choice? If so, what difference does it make?


Edit: I see you changed your avatar from the busty and scantily clad woman. Bit of image management going on there?

 

[JulesJackson]

I don't know.

But either way doesn't really seem to matter to me. Either they're unable to change their sexuality at will, in which case forcing them to be straight is basically futile, or they are able to but why should they be forced to rescind a choice freely made? It doesn't strike me as something that harms others, so if people wish to choose to be homosexual for whatever reason, more power to them.

I enjoy driving sports cars. I don't know whether I was born liking sports cars, or whether it's a choice I made at some point, but I don't see much reason anyone should tell me not to. Frankly, I don't see much difference if a man enjoys riding men, whether it's innate or a choice.

Do you think that it matters whether homosexuality is innate or a choice? If so, what difference does it make?


Edit: I see you changed your avatar from the busty and scantily clad woman. Bit of image management going on there?

Then you are contradicting yourself. And for the display pic, everyone needs a little orange mocha frappuccino. Mikie hara ftw....

 

[Imari]

Then you are contradicting yourself.

You'll need to explain exactly how I'm contradicting myself, because obviously I don't see it.

 

[Daniel]

Does anyone else find it ironic that @GTP_GTDOJO's avatar is George Michael?

 

[Denur]

Does anyone else find it ironic that @GTP_GTDOJO's avatar is George Michael?

No, the kid is just trolling.

 

[Imari]

No, the kid is just trolling.

That's my feeling as well, but it'd be nice if he attempted to answer some of the questions put to him.

 

[FoolKiller]

It's the same group of people bashing religion yet want to use one of the focal points of religion; marriage.

Religion may have a focus on it, but it isn't a religious only thing, nor religious invention. It isn't like they demand to have legally recognized gay prayer.

By the way, you keep throwing the liberal term around like the priest throwing holy water with his honey dipper.

I'm not a liberal or a Democrat. There is a picture of Rand Paul on the Kentucky state capital steps, surrounded by supporters, from the day he filed his election papers. I am in the front row, down on one knee, directly in front of Dr. Paul.

So, you know, people can be non-liberal but not see an issue with homosexuals.

 

[JulesJackson]

No, the kid is just trolling.

Our great president:

This exactly what is wrong with homosexuality. People are treated like heros for just coming out, it's the new race card. Keep it to yourself and stop showboating it like it's an accomplishment.

Charles Barkley also makes a good point.

 

[JulesJackson]

Does anyone else find it ironic that @GTP_GTDOJO's avatar is George Michael?

Is it a crime to like good music?

 

[TenEightyOne]

This exactly what is wrong with homosexuality

So there's something wrong with homosexuality, in your stated opinion. We've established that.

How would it be to be gay and have a lot of people think there was something wrong with you?

People are treated like heros for just coming out, it's the new race card.

They pretty much are in the face of opinions like yours. Think carefully about the "race card" you're comparing it to and be quite careful about linking your previous opinion with it.

Keep it to yourself and stop showboating it like it's some (nearly-effing) accomplishment

What's the accomplishment; being gay or coming out? I don't think the first really counts as one, the second certainly does in some societies. Like up your alley.

EDIT: Didn't know that the funky word ending -ing was banned til I saw the later posts